DOCSLIB.ORG

The Era of Vladimir I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Era of Vladimir I Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-67636-6 - Medieval Russia 980-1584, Second Edition Janet Martin Excerpt More information 1 THE ERA OF VLADIMIR I . In the year 980, an obscure prince landed on the northern shores of a land that became known as Rus and, later, Russia. Almost a decade earlier his father, the ruler of this land, had placed him in charge of the area surrounding one of its towns, the recently founded Novgorod. But after his father died (972) and one of his elder brothers killed the other (977), this prince, Vladimir (Volodimer) Sviatoslavich, fled abroad. After several years of exile he now led a band of Varangians (Norsemen) across the Baltic from Scandinavia. His intention was to depose his half-brother Iaropolk and assume the throne of Kiev. vladimir’s seizure of the kievan throne Upon landing in Rus, Prince Vladimir immediately sought allies to join him against Iaropolk. He turned to the prince of Polotsk (Polatsk), Rogvolod, a fellow Varangian but unrelated to Vladimir and his family, and requested the hand of his daughter Rogneda in marriage. But she haughtily refused him, calling him the “son of a slave” and indicating a preference for Iaropolk. Vladimir responded by leading his Varangian force, along with Slovenes, Chud, and Krivichi from his former domain of Novgorod, against Polotsk. He defeated and killed Rogvolod and his sons, captured Rogneda, and forced her to become his bride. Polotsk was attached to the realm of Vladimir’s family, the Riurikid dynasty. Vladimir then marched toward his brother’s capital, the city of Kiev. Growing out of settlements established in the sixth and seventh © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-67636-6 - Medieval Russia 980-1584, Second Edition Janet Martin Excerpt More information 2 Medieval Russia,980–1584 centuries, Kiev was located far to the south of Novgorod on hills overlooking the west or right bank of the Dnieper River. By 980 it had become the political center of a domain, known as Kievan Rus, that extended from Novgorod on the Volkhov River south- ward across the divide where the Volga, the West Dvina, and the Dnieper Rivers all had their origins, and down the Dnieper just past Kiev. It also included the lower reaches of the main tributaries of the Dnieper. Arriving at the city, Vladimir entered into negotiations with his brother. But in the midst of their talks two of Vladimir’s Varangians murdered Iaropolk. Vladimir Sviatoslavich became the sole prince of Kievan Rus. Prince Vladimir’s claim to the Kievan throne rested only in part on the military force he used to secure it. It was also based on heritage. Vladimir was one of the sons of Sviatoslav, prince of Kiev from 962 to 972. The Russian Primary Chronicle traces Sviatoslav’s lineage back through his father Igor and mother Olga to a Norseman named Riurik. The legend of Riurik claims that in the ninth century a group of quarreling eastern Slav and Finnic tribes that had dwelled in what is now northwestern Russia invited Riurik and his brothers to come to their lands, rule over them, and bring peace and order to their peoples. While the chronicle account incorporates myth and cannot be taken literally, it does reflect the fact that Scandinavian Vikings, called Rus,1 were present in the territories of the eastern Slav and Finnic tribes by the ninth century and that they eventually became rulers or princes over the native population. Vladimir’s ancestors, founders of the dynasty that was later named after Riurik, led one of those Viking bands. Vladimir’s victory over Rogvolod signaled the completion of the process pursued by Igor and Sviatoslav to eliminate rival bands and establish exclusive ascendancy over enough of the native tribes to fashion a cohesive principality out of their territories. Although the Slav tribes shared a common language and there is some evidence of 1 The origin of the term “Rus” and the populations and territories to which it refers have been the subjects of lengthy and intense debate. For the sake of simplicity the term will be used in this chapter to refer to the Scandinavians, including the members of the Riurikid dynasty, who imposed their rule over the eastern Slavs. In subsequent chapters the distinction between the Scandinavian Rus and the Slavs will be dropped and the term will be applied to the rulers and population of Kievan Rus. That term will be used broadly to mean those lands subject to the Riurikid princes. © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-67636-6 - Medieval Russia 980-1584, Second Edition Janet Martin Excerpt More information The era of Vladimir I 3 a federation among them prior to the establishment of Scandinavian rule, it was their common recognition of the Riurikid dynasty that bound them into the state that became known as Kievan Rus. consolidation of power The lands of Vladimir’s realm were populated primarily by east- ern Slav tribes. To the north were the Slovenes of the Novgorod region and the neighboring Krivichi, who occupied the territories surrounding the headwaters of the West Dvina, Dnieper, and Volga Rivers. To the south in the area around Kiev were the Poliane, a group of Slavicized tribes with Iranian origins. To their north the Derevliane inhabited the lands west of the Dnieper extending to its right tributary, the Pripiat River (Pripet). On the other side of the Pripiat were the Dregovichi. West of the Derevliane dwelled the Volynians; south of them, i.e., southwest of Kiev, were the Ulichi and Tivertsy tribes. East of the Dnieper along its left tributary, the Desna River, were Severiane tribes; the Viatichi lived to their north and east along the upper Oka River. Kievan Rus was fringed in the north by the Finnic Chud, and in the northeast by the Muroma and Merya tribes that occupied the lands on the Oka and Volga Rivers. To the south its forested lands settled by Slav agriculturalists gave way to steppelands populated by nomadic herdsmen. Within Kievan Rus there were several noteworthy towns by the late tenth century. Kiev and Novgorod, its southern and northern focal points, were the most important. In addition, Kievan Rus contained Smolensk, a center of the Krivichi, located on the upper Dnieper. West of Smolensk was the town of Polotsk, which Vladimir had seized from Rogvolod; it was located on the Polota River which flows into the West Dvina. South of Polotsk, on the Pripiat River, was the Dregovich center of Turov (Turau). On the east side of the Dnieper Chernigov (Chernihiv), the major center of the Severiane tribes, commanded the Desna River. Pereiaslavl, situated southeast of Kiev on the Trubezh River, another tributary of the Dnieper, was the town nearest the steppe frontier. Rostov, located on Lake Nero in Merya country, had also been founded by the era of Prince Vladimir. Kievan Rus was coalescing amidst other organized states. To the east was Bulgar, located on the mid-VolgaRiver near its juncture with the Kama. South of Bulgar and southeast of Kievan Rus were the © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-67636-6 - Medieval Russia 980-1584, Second Edition Janet Martin Excerpt More information 4 Medieval Russia,980–1584 Map 1.1 The tribes of early Rus © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-67636-6 - Medieval Russia 980-1584, Second Edition Janet Martin Excerpt More information The era of Vladimir I 5 remnants of a once powerful empire, Khazaria. Before the formation of Kievan Rus Khazaria had claimed some of the eastern Slav tribes as its tributaries. And until the reign of Vladimir’s father, Sviatoslav, who delivered the final blow that destroyed it, Khazaria had dominated the region of the lower Volga and the Northern Caucasus and had maintained stability on the steppe. West of Kiev were Poland and Hungary, which were also organizing into kingdoms and expanding in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. And to the south, beyond the steppe, was the greatest empire of the age, Byzantium, whose control extended over the northern coast of the Black Sea and influence into the Balkans. Once established in Kiev, Vladimir faced the task of consolidating his personal position and the monopoly on power he had attained for his family or dynasty over all the lands of Kievan Rus. After displacing Iaropolk, no relatives were available to challenge him. But he nevertheless had to ensure that all the tribes within his realm would continue to recognize him as their prince and neither withdraw their allegiance nor transfer it to a neighboring power. Their loyalty was symbolized by their payment of tribute or taxes. Vladimir’s most pressing problem in this respect was posed by the Viatichi, who had rebelled when Sviatoslav died in 972. One of Vladimir’s first acts (981–82), therefore, was to suppress their rebellion and reestablish Kievan authority over them. In 984, he also expanded Kievan Rus by subordinating the Radimichi, another Slav tribe that inhabited the lands north of the Severiane and east of the upper Dnieper. In 985, Vladimir and his uncle Dobrynia also conducted a military campaign against the Volga Bulgars, who dominated the mid-Volga region and exercised some influence over the tribes dwelling to the north and west of their own territories. After the demise of Khazaria, Bulgar was the chief potential rival to Kievan Rus authority over the peoples, like the Muroma and the Merya, who occupied the lands along the upper Volga and Oka Rivers well to the east of Kiev and the Dnieper.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russian Byliny As Discursive Space
    Putting Words in Their Mouths: Russian Byliny as 83 Discursive Space Putting Words in Their Mouths: Russian Byliny as Discursive Space Kate Christine Moore Koppy Marymount University and the University of the District of Columbia Community College Arlington, Virginia, United States of America Abstract This article follows the Melnitsa Animation Studio into the imagined medieval space of their bogatyr films. With particular focus on Melnitsa’s use of the Il’ia Muromets corpus in Илья Муромец и Соловей Разбойник [Il’ia and the Robber], we consider the complex set of conflicts among characters and ideas that reflect concepts of identity and social issues in contemporary Russia. In moments of cultural unrest, adaptations of canonical stories serve as a discursive space for the community to redefine itself. In the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, the byliny [western Slavic heroic epics] have functioned as tools of cultural cohesion at critical moments of national self-redefinition. Most recently, the Студия анимационного кино Мельница [Melnitsa Animation Studio] (1) has adapted the byliny into animated films for children, in which stories of medieval princes, heroes, and villains become a discursive space for the exploration of social issues in the post-Soviet Russian Federation. Melnitsa’s 2007 film Il’ia and the Robber is the most recent example in a steady stream of adaptation and retelling of byliny from the time they were first printed to the present. Along that timeline, there are three moments in which adaptations flourish, and each of these coincides with a crucial moment of redefinition of Russian culture. The nineteenth century recording of these heroic epics, which adapts them from dynamic oral epics to written texts (2), was part of the wave of romantic nationalism that drove scholars across Europe to gather folkloric material as the feudal city-states of the medieval period coalesced into more stable nations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chronicle of Novgorod 1016-1471
    - THE CHRONICLE OF NOVGOROD 1016-1471 TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY ROBERT ,MICHELL AND NEVILL FORBES, Ph.D. Reader in Russian in the University of Oxford WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY C. RAYMOND BEAZLEY, D.Litt. Professor of Modern History in the University of Birmingham AND AN ACCOUNT OF THE TEXT BY A. A. SHAKHMATOV Professor in the University of St. Petersburg CAMDEN’THIRD SERIES I VOL. xxv LONDON OFFICES OF THE SOCIETY 6 63 7 SOUTH SQUARE GRAY’S INN, W.C. 1914 _. -- . .-’ ._ . .e. ._ ‘- -v‘. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE General Introduction (and Notes to Introduction) . vii-xxxvi Account of the Text . xxx%-xli Lists of Titles, Technical terms, etc. xlii-xliii The Chronicle . I-zzo Appendix . 221 tJlxon the Bibliography . 223-4 . 225-37 GENERAL INTRODUCTION I. THE REPUBLIC OF NOVGOROD (‘ LORD NOVGOROD THE GREAT," Gospodin Velikii Novgorod, as it once called itself, is the starting-point of Russian history. It is also without a rival among the Russian city-states of the Middle Ages. Kiev and Moscow are greater in political importance, especially in the earliest and latest mediaeval times-before the Second Crusade and after the fall of Constantinople-but no Russian town of any age has the same individuality and self-sufficiency, the same sturdy republican independence, activity, and success. Who can stand against God and the Great Novgorod ?-Kto protiv Boga i Velikago Novgoroda .J-was the famous proverbial expression of this self-sufficiency and success. From the beginning of the Crusading Age to the fall of the Byzantine Empire Novgorod is unique among Russian cities, not only for its population, its commerce, and its citizen army (assuring it almost complete freedom from external domination even in the Mongol Age), but also as controlling an empire, or sphere of influence, extending over the far North from Lapland to the Urals and the Ob.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus' (10Th-12Th Centuries)
    The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus’ (10th-12th centuries) Alexandra Vukovic University of Cambridge Jesus College June 2015 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Preface Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration where specifically indicated in the text. No parts of this dissertation have been submitted for any other qualification. Statement of Length This dissertation does not exceed the word limit of 80,000 words set by the Degree Committee of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages. Word count: 79, 991 words Alexandra Vukovic Abstract The Ritualisation of Political Power in Early Rus’ (10th-12th centuries) Alexandra Vukovic This dissertation examines the ceremonies and rituals involving the princes of early Rus’ and their entourage, how these ceremonies and rituals are represented in the literature and artefacts of early Rus’, the possible cultural influences on ceremony and ritual in this emergent society, and the role of ceremony and ritual as representative of political structures and in shaping the political culture of the principalities of early Rus’. The process begins by introducing key concepts and historiographic considerations for the study of ceremony and ritual and their application to the medieval world. The textological survey that follows focusses on the chronicles of Rus’, due to their compilatory nature, and discusses the philological, linguistic, and contextual factors governing the use of chronicles in this study. This examination of the ceremonies and rituals of early Rus’, the first comprehensive study of its kind for this region in the early period, engages with other studies of ceremony and ritual for the medieval period to inform our understanding of the political culture of early Rus’ and its influences.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Imperial Encounter with Armenians, 1801-1894
    CLAIMING THE CAUCASUS: RUSSIA’S IMPERIAL ENCOUNTER WITH ARMENIANS, 1801-1894 Stephen B. Riegg A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2016 Approved by: Louise McReynolds Donald J. Raleigh Chad Bryant Cemil Aydin Eren Tasar © 2016 Stephen B. Riegg ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Stephen B. Riegg: Claiming the Caucasus: Russia’s Imperial Encounter with Armenians, 1801-1894 (Under the direction of Louise McReynolds) My dissertation questions the relationship between the Russian empire and the Armenian diaspora that populated Russia’s territorial fringes and navigated the tsarist state’s metropolitan centers. I argue that Russia harnessed the stateless and dispersed Armenian diaspora to build its empire in the Caucasus and beyond. Russia relied on the stature of the two most influential institutions of that diaspora, the merchantry and the clergy, to project diplomatic power from Constantinople to Copenhagen; to benefit economically from the transimperial trade networks of Armenian merchants in Russia, Persia, and Turkey; and to draw political advantage from the Armenian Church’s extensive authority within that nation. Moving away from traditional dichotomies of power and resistance, this dissertation examines how Russia relied on foreign-subject Armenian peasants and elites to colonize the South Caucasus, thereby rendering Armenians both agents and recipients of European imperialism. Religion represented a defining link in the Russo-Armenian encounter and therefore shapes the narrative of my project. Driven by a shared ecumenical identity as adherents of Orthodox Christianity, Armenians embraced Russian patronage in the early nineteenth century to escape social and political marginalization in the Persian and Ottoman empires.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Operation Between the Viking Rus' and the Turkic Nomads of The
    Csete Katona Co-operation between the Viking Rus’ and the Turkic nomads of the steppe in the ninth-eleventh centuries MA Thesis in Medieval Studies Central European University Budapest May 2018 CEU eTD Collection Co-operation between the Viking Rus’ and the Turkic nomads of the steppe in the ninth-eleventh centuries by Csete Katona (Hungary) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ Chair, Examination Committee ____________________________________________ Thesis Supervisor ____________________________________________ Examiner ____________________________________________ Examiner CEU eTD Collection Budapest May 2018 Co-operation between the Viking Rus’ and the Turkic nomads of the steppe in the ninth-eleventh centuries by Csete Katona (Hungary) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Reader CEU eTD Collection Budapest May 2018 Co-operation between the Viking Rus’ and the Turkic nomads of the steppe in the ninth-eleventh centuries by Csete Katona (Hungary) Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies. Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU. ____________________________________________ External Supervisor CEU eTD Collection Budapest May 2018 I, the undersigned, Csete Katona, candidate for the MA degree in Medieval Studies, declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography.
    [Show full text]
  • Katona Csete
    Doktori (Ph.D.) értekezés KATONA CSETE A VARÉG-RUSZOK ÉS A STEPPEI NÉPEK VISZONYA A VIKING KORBAN (9–11. SZÁZAD KÖZEPE) DEBRECENI EGYETEM BDT 2019 A VARÉG-RUSZOK ÉS A STEPPEI NÉPEK VISZONYA A VIKING KORBAN (9–11. SZÁZAD KÖZEPE) Értekezés a doktori (Ph.D.) fokozat megszerzése érdekében a történelem tudományágban Írta: Katona Csete Készült a Debreceni Egyetem Történelmi- és Néprajzi doktori iskolája (Történelem programja) keretében Témavezető: Dr. (olvasható aláírás) A doktori szigorlati bizottság: elnök: Dr. ………………………… tagok: Dr. ………………………… Dr. ………………………… A doktori szigorlat időpontja: 200… . ……………… … . Az értekezés bírálói: Dr. ........................................... Dr. …………………………… Dr. ........................................... A bírálóbizottság: elnök: Dr. ........................................... tagok: Dr. ………………………….. Dr. ………………………….. Dr. ………………………….. Dr. ………………………….. A nyilvános vita időpontja: 200… . ……………… … . „Én Katona Csete teljes felelősségem tudatában kijelentem, hogy a benyújtott értekezés önálló munka, a szerzői jog nemzetközi normáinak tiszteletben tartásával készült, a benne található irodalmi hivatkozások egyértelműek és teljesek. Nem állok doktori fokozat visszavonására irányuló eljárás alatt, illetve 5 éven belül nem vontak vissza tőlem odaítélt doktori fokozatot. Jelen értekezést korábban más intézményben nem nyújtottam be és azt nem utasították el.” Debrecen, 2019. 08. 30. Katona Csete TARTALOMJEGYZÉK Bevezetés. A témaválasztás indoklása és a célkitűzések ................................................. 4
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis Yulia Mikhailova
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository History ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2-14-2014 Power and Property Relations in Rus and Latin Europe: A Comparative Analysis Yulia Mikhailova Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/hist_etds Recommended Citation Mikhailova, Yulia. "Power and Property Relations in Rus and Latin Europe: A Comparative Analysis." (2014). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/hist_etds/55 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Yulia Mikhailova Candidate History Department This dissertation is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication: Approved by the Dissertation Committee: Timothy Graham, Chairperson Melissa Bokovoy Tanya Ivanova-Sullivan Erika Monahan David Prestel Power and Property Relations in Rus and Latin Europe: A Comparative Analysis by Yulia Mikhailova M.A., Russian, Michigan State University, 2002 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy History The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico December, 2013 ©2013, Yulia Mikhailova iii Dedication To my husband Oleg Makhnin and to my daughters Katya and Tanya Makhnina iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Timothy Graham, for his support, guid- ance, and, above all, for his Latin reading group, without which this dissertation would be impossible. I would also like to thank David Prestel and Tania Ivanova- Sullivan for their detailed feedback on my drafts and for all their comments, sug- gestions, and corrections that helped make this dissertation better, and I thank all my committee members for their help, patience, and support.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mechanisms of the Old Russian State Genesis
    The Mechanisms of the Old Russian State Genesis Evgeniy A. Shinakov Bryansk State University ABSTRACT In the process of comparative study of different types of historical sources two groups of mechanisms of hierarchy formation and power legitimation in the Ancient Rus were defined: 1) ‘plutocratic’ (trading), genealogical, military-resistance, treating (contracting), military-integrative mechanisms; 2) military-repressing (‘ritual conflict’), legislative, military-conquering, marriage-relative, ideo- logical, military-defensive, integrative-demographical mechanisms. Mechanisms of the first group functioned during the period of con- solidation of different types of chiefdoms into ‘barbarian’ power with two-level hierarchy (the second half of the 9th century). Mechanisms of the second group appeared during the process of transformation of ‘barbarian’ power into the early state (the sec- ond half of the 10th century). The first group is connected with the struggle between the Varangians that exploited tribes and chief- doms (‘kniazeniya’) along the ‘East Way’ and local nobility for treasury and sovereignty. Ancient Rus was created as a result of treaty between the local elite and part of the Varangians and was greatly expanded during Oleg's reign. The second group of mecha- nisms begins by the ‘ritual’ massacre of seceded Drevlian' chief- dom and was immediately followed by Olga's reforms. The centraliz- ing activity of two sons of Swiatoslaw was followed by complex re- forms of Vladimir I and was finalized by legislative activity of Yaro- slav the Wise that finally formalized social structure and hierarchy of Old Russian early state. Despite the insufficient precision of the correlation of the terms: social and cultural (or sociocultural)1 political anthropology2 (or its approximate equivalent – potestoral-political ethnography in Social Evolution & History, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Finds of Structural Details of Composite Bows from Ancient Rus
    FINDS OF STRUCTURAL DETAILS OF COMPOSITE BOWS FROM ANCIENT RUS K. A. MIKHAILOV*–S. YU. KAINOV ** *Institute of the History of Material Culture, St. Petersburg, Russia **State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper is concerned with the problem of the appearance and distribution of the traditional nomadic weapon– the composite bow–in Ancient Rus. The authors have summarised evidence on fifteen complexes with new finds of composite bows at the most ancient Russian sites. The preserved overlays of the bows enable us to reconstruct the technology of assembling bows of various types. The article also summarises evidence on the characteristic items of the equipment of eastern archers, which together with a composite bow constituted a single set: bowcases for keeping the bows and quivers. The results of the present studies have drawn the authors to the conclusion about the wide distribution of complex nomadic bows throughout Ancient Rus in the 10 th century. The outmost concentrations of the finds have proved to be related with early towns and the culture of the rising Ancient-Russian elite– “druzhinas”. In the present study, the use of two types of bows in Rus–the “Hungarian” and the “Pechenegian” (“Turkic”) types–has been demonstrated. Among the Ancient-Russian finds, bows of the “Hungarian” type hold a prominent place. The most ancient finds are dated to the third quarter of the 10 th century. The appearance of composite bows was part of the process of distribution of items of armament, horse-gear, costume and accessories connected with the nomads of Eastern Europe among the Ancient-Russian mili - tary subculture.
    [Show full text]
  • HIS EXPEDITION AGAINST the PECHENEGS* Harald Hardrada
    K RIJ NIE CIGGAAR HARALD HARDRADA: HIS EXPEDITION AGAINST THE PECHENEGS* Harald Hardrada, half-brother of St. Olaf, had travelled far and wide before he became king of Norway in 1046. As A mercenary he served in the Varangian guard in Constantinople. First the Russians had formed the main element in this regiment, but gradually their role was taken over by the Scandi­ navians in the first half of the eleventh century (cf. note 52). Harald’s arrival in Miklagarth, the regular name for the Byzantine capital, took place about 10341. Here he served three successive emperors: Michael IV the Paphlagonian (1034-41), Michael V Calaphates (1041-2) and Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-55). When serving the Byzantine emperors he took part in many expedi­ tions of which only A few are known of2. Sometimes he campaigned under the command of Georges Maniakes, the famous Greek general, sometimes he went out with his own men3. In this article we hope to throw some more light on one of the expeditions Harald undertook with his band of Norther­ ners. The activities of the Norwegian prince are testified by several sources, Greek and Scandinavian. The Greeks, understanding^ enough where A foreign military commander was concerned, are very sparse with information on his military achievements. In the Admonition to the Emperor, an eleventh century *1 am greatly indebted to Andrea van Arkel—de Leeuw van Weenen and Christopher Sanders for their very valuable criticism and their suggestions. 1. J. Shepard, A Note on Harold Hardraada: the Date of his Arrival at Byzantium, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 22, 1973, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Druzhina« Graves Dating to the Time Around Ad 1000 in Pìdgìrcì (Western Ukraine)
    RADOSŁAW LIWOCH · MICHAEL MÜLLER-WILLE »DRUZHINA« GRAVES DATING TO THE TIME AROUND AD 1000 IN PÌDGÌRCÌ (WESTERN UKRAINE) In western Ukraine, which was once part of Kievan Rus’ (fig.1) and then part of Galicia, to the south of the village of Pìdgìrcì (Podhorce in Polish, Podgorcy in Russian, obl. Lviv, raj. Brody), there is the early medieval Plìsnes’k settlement complex – a hillfort, settlements and burial grounds (fig. 2). It was mentioned in the old Rus’ chronicles for the year 1188, in a reference to the failed attempt by prince Roman Mstislavič Fig. 1 Europe around 1000. – (Map R. Liwoch). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 42 · 2012 421 Fig. 2 Plan of the hillfort in Pìdgìrcì (obl. Lviv/UA): 1 ramparts. – 2 ploughed sections of ramparts. – 3 burial-mound cemetery. – (After Kučera 1962, 13 fig.1). of Volodimir to remove hostile Galič boyars and Hungarians from the fort, and then again for the year 1233, when Danilo Romanovič, prince of Volodimir, retook the fort from the Arbuzovičs boyars. It was destroyed in the winter of 1240/1241 during the raid by the Mongolian horde of Batu-Khan (Liwoch 2003, 260 f. with bibliography). The hillfort and burial mounds in Pìdgìrcì, about 60 km east of Lviv, aroused the interest of antiquaries and treasure hunters already at the beginning of the 19th century, but the first professional excavations were conducted on the site between 1881 and 1883 by T. Ziemięcki, an archaeologist from Cracow. In 1905 and 1907, the hillfort was investigated by K. Hadaczek from Lviv. At that time, western Ukraine (eastern Galicia) was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (after World War I, up to the end of World War II, it was part of Poland).
    [Show full text]
  • Princess Olga: Eastern Woman Through Western Eyes
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern University Honors Program Theses 2020 Princess Olga: Eastern Woman Through Western Eyes Lee A. Hitt Georgia Southern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses Recommended Citation Hitt, Lee A., "Princess Olga: Eastern Woman Through Western Eyes" (2020). University Honors Program Theses. 541. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/honors-theses/541 This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in University Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Princess Olga Eastern Woman Through Western Eyes An Honors Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in History. By Lee A. Hitt Under the mentorship of Dr. Olavi Arens ABSTRACT In the Viking world, stories of women inciting revenge reach back through the past into oral history. These legends were written down in the sagas of the Icelanders. Princess Olga’s story was recorded in the Russian Primary Chronicle. Though her heritage is uncertain, Olga ruled in Kievan Rus’ in the ninth and tenth centuries. Kievan Rus’ was governed by Vikings from Sweden known as Varangians. There are similarities between Olga’s story and the sagas. This study applies the research of scholars who pioneered the topic of gendering the Old Norse Icelandic literature, to compare her story to the gender norms and cultural values of the Scandinavians. The goal is to tie Olga’s heritage, to the greater Viking world.
    [Show full text]